Did OSHA Crack Under Pressure?

One should not assume that every rule ever proposed by OSHA was beneficial to anyone, either employer or employee. One only has to have a discussion with some of their agents to wonder where they are coming from. Aside from the dewy faced wet behind the ears recent graduates you also have the hardened ex-employees who are out to "repay" all employers for any and all imagined slights against themselves which were often caused by their own ineptitude or poor work ethic.

As far as noteworthy rule changes don't forget the infamous "split toilet seat" rule which subjected more people to the chance of getting some disgusting venereal disease and don't you wonder which rocket scientist working for OSHA came up with that rule.

Wasn't the Split Toilet seat rule just OSHA adopting the existing national consensus rule used in business at that time, as directed, based on the long standing ANSI standards. I am not sure I understand you are holding OSHA to blmae because polticians forced them to adopt existing business practices initially as their standards?

Bear in mind most OSHA rules get severely mitigated by business interests through congress, because of business fears that worker safety could impair their profitability. Admittedly some worker safety rules seem a bit overly focused on what seems like a minor impairment, but I did not conduct the studies it is based on, nor do I know how much it was modified by business intersts in congress professing to try and save small business from the cost of a safe work environment. As it stands now ever company knows they only ever hear anything from OSHA when they either have a huge public news event or a former employee reports them (working employees know better as the process makes it quite easy for employers to identify working employees who report them).

They levied fines against businesses that didn't change the seats from full to split after the OSHA act was in effect back in the 70's. Why ANSI would have a Standard on Toilet Seats is beyond me since this would seem like something that should be under a Public Health issue rather than an Engineering Standard.

I had a visit from a NIOSH inspector one day as a follow up to a complaint issued by a disgruntled ex-employee. The next day an OSHA inspector working out of the same office location showed up for a visit, walked out into the plant, made a bee line to a table saw, asked me to start it and then asked me to unplug it. I started to turn it off and she said No, just unplug it while running. I did so saying that it wasn't a safe practice. She then had me plug it back in with the switch in the "On" position, another unsafe practice. It restarted since it was a 20 year old saw that had a simple On-Off switch. We were cited for not having a magnetic starter on that saw.

I challenged the fact that she picked this up on her own. I stated that the NIOSH inspector had obviously alerted her to this situation. NIOSH inspectors did not have the authority to issue citations then. I further stated that the if this was truly a "perilous" situation to our employees then her fellow worker put our employees at risk by not informing us and should be cited for malfeasance. It was obvious that this was more of a "revenue raising" visit than a safety inspection for our employees.

Protecting their Empire is more on most OSHA and EPA employee's minds than the safety of the workplace or the environment.

So was this actually a violation and were you aware of it?

The question with public servants is they are there to enforce the law and related ordinances/regulations, not to make judgement calls on which violations are enforceable based on the plant manager's personality, who informed them of the potential violation, their own knowledge or feelings about the business, etc.. Why do criminals always seem to believe their crimes are not like other crimes, not really crimes at all?

Would you respond the same if a Police officer showed up to a house after receiving a call from a building inspector that a house was definitely being used to process meth, and the police then pursued and investigated the home?

No I was not aware at the time that a magnetic starter was required and if the NIOSH inspector was aware, as it was apparent that she was, then she had a Duty as a public safety professional to inform us that an unsafe condition existed.

If she was truly interested in the safety of the employees who used that machine then she would used her knowledge toward their safety and not toward Revenue Generation for her Agency.

If lack of all the ramifications contained in the OSHA Act of 1970 makes me a criminal then I probably have a whole lot of company and that probably includes you also. When that act first came out most companies put a clause in their Purchase Orders that the "Equipment must be in compliance with OSHA Requirements" because no one really understood what the hell was inside the 3000 or so pages.

Under the General Duty Clause

sounds like you don't play well with others

I'm sure there is more to the story than you are relating

When you poke a bureaucrat with a stick don't be surprised, when the nit picky version of the rule book comes out

Exactly true, and bureaucrats are by definition corrupt when they don't knowingly enforce regulations on some but do on others. If they had a complaint they had to do something, or they risk their own jobs.

Hmm, your statements seem to conflict with each other as you attempt to develop a case in support of your cause. You already made the statement, as if everyone would have known, that "It restarted since it was a 20 year old saw that had a simple On-Off switch.". It appears you are implying that you are not reasonably knowledgeable of your own equipment or the safety requirements, but you have implicated the NIOSH inspector informing the OSHA branch as a basis for the the inspection, simply on the basis that they work in the same building. How do you know it was apparent she knew of this violation, if it was apparent to you during the NIOSH inspection that the NIOSH inspector perceived this as a violation, then you were knowledgable of the violation prior to the OSHA inspection and could have repaired it. Maybe part of the complaint by the employee indicated that saw was a safety hazard.

Also, violating the law would make the party uiltimately responsible for implementing safety on equipment a criminal, just like any other crime. I was pulled over the other day because my vehicle registration tags were not on my vehicle, I had not received them likely becaus the State DMV is behind in processing orders due to newdriver license problems. However, the vehicle code doesn't state I may drive with expired tags while I wait for DMV. I was in violation and have to pay the penalty, which being a fix it ticket is a small administration fee for processing the paperwork. Annoying yes, it is, but technically I was the criminal in that situation.

When you meet someone who has ALL the answers about ALL the equipment in their plant and know ALL the Regulations that apply to them congratulate him or her for me for they are truly a person to be held in the highest esteem and deserve recognition.

If I had been a mind reader then I might have been able to perceive that the NIOSH inspector was seeing a violation which I could have run out, bought a magnetic starter and fixed before OSHA showed up the next day. In fact, that was probably why she didn't wait a day or two before showing up so I wouldn't have the opportunity to correct that "violation before she got there. Hell. she should have waiting out in the car so as soon as the one left the other could run in.

And if I should have know that there was a regulation that required that a grandfathered piece of equipment to be retrofitted well Mea Culpa, mea culpa. If I had been known that it was in violation it would have been corrected very shortly after having found out. It was not because I was unwilling to correct the situation but because I didn't know it was a situation. So it cost $ 75 for the starter and a $300 extortion err I mean fine. I could have purchased a spanking brand new saw for the $300 that was extorted err I mean paid.

As for the "implication" and the question of being "reasonably knowledgeable" I'm quite sure that you are right and that it was only a "Co-incidence" although like Jethro Gibbs I don't always believe in co-incidences that come that close together.

Knowing the financial condition that the State of California is in, it is probably working to their benefit that the one Dept is "behind" in their work. They might even feel that if enough people get tickets for their being "a little behind" in their work you taxpayers might be willing to cough up some more taxes to pay them some OT to get caught up. Some people would not feel that they are being "criminal" because they haven't received their tags and must still drive in order to get to work but they might feel that they are a victim of "entrapment" by one department of the State acting against them because another department of the State has set them up to violate the law and make them a "Criminal".

You really didn't know that all your equipment needs proper start/E-stops?

I see why your handle is spinco

Municipal Police are not a Department of State Government, and fines are imposed through County governments, not the State. Unless it is CHP, the State really doesn't receive the fund for such violations, and CHP only receives a small portion for the State, most still goes to County and local Agencies where the violations occur. however, If you knowingly violate the law that makes you a criminal. Peoples perceptions vary because no one thinks the illegal actions or inactions they have undertaken are really that serious and shouldn't be criminal in their case, even many drug dealers, drunk drivers, shoplifters, etc. think they are some how justified in violating the law. The real difference is not in whether you are or are not a criminal, but rather the degree of criminality and how society perceive the crimes. A guy the other day was driving out of Home Depot speeding and texting, hit a Van parked on the side of the road, and then veered into a Telephone pole. A teenage girl was leaning on the Van, her parents Van in front of her house, talking to her friends. He of course swears it wasn't his fault, he didn't know the speed limit was 25 in a residential area (he was doing in excess of 65 when he hit the pole and broke it), and apparently he wasn't sending a text message but just reading one that came in that he felt was important (which in his mind apparently wasn't clearly covered to his knowledge under the ban against texting while driving). Is he a criminal?

These were both apparent "power grabs."

Why would an OSHA inspector have authority to dictate a new control, which may or may not acheieve results sufficient to make PPE no longer necessary, without any cost benefit analysis?

The OSHA field people we have seen have been new hires, with no prior industry experience, and they are going to tell us what is feasible?

I was proud to have led the industry pushback on that issue; getting other associations involved, and winning addditional time for fact finding. That additional time allowed the folks in DC to see the change in the makeup of the congress after the mid term elections. I think that pushback from the regulated community, and the fact that it was especially from the SME's (small medium enterprises) who are this country's true job creators, was far above what they expected.

On the musculo-skeletal issue, this was a case of having failed to get the rule through legislation, they were just going to enforce claiming authority under general duty clause. Again the manufacturing community and others shouted foul and pushed back.

We believe that the failure to legislate gives them a weak hand to 'regulate' by other means, and they wisely withdrew rather than risk a potential precedent being established should an appeal find that failure of congress to legislate this could mean that the General duty clause did "not " cover this.

These were ambitious changes and when the regulated community responded, these were pulled back like "trial balloons."

Those of us in manufacturing need to remain alert, diligent, and engaged if we are to avoid the fate of Thomas Edison's (164 years ago today born) greatest invention, the electric light bulb, which has been ruled illegal in Europe and soon to be here in the USA.

Eternal vigilance is step one.

Effective engagement is step two.

Milo